>Nothing in that article contradicts my statement that black
>boys don't have to be "ghetto and loud" to be popular in white
>settings.


And my response was about Black boys being
socially manipulated into the roles that
white people are comfortable with. That
may take many forms, but "ghetto and loud"
was just the example given in the article.


>The article gives forms of social behavior that black boys are
>rewarded for in that environment (and black girls are punished
>for), but that doesn't equal the rule that the only way black
>boys are able to fit in in such environments are by being
>ghetto and loud.



I agree, and my response to the article applies
to any of these forms.



>None of this changes my orignal assertion that often times
>black men have it easier socially in predominately white
>environments and certianly in predominately white male
>environments (corporate america).



Your original assertion was that it's a toss up
between who'll have it easier, depending on the
boss's whims.



>You say that may be true but it is only by being the
>plantation buck and I think that's just dead wrong. I don't
>think Richard Parsons or any of the current few black male
>fortune 500 CEOS got to where they are by being the plantaion
>buck.


I don't mean plantation buck literally. I just
mean whatever white people socially make one into.
One has been socially "whipped into shape" so to speak...
like a plantation buck. The paragraph where I
say the phrase should make that pretty clear.



>>>You are looking for hard and fast rules which doesn't work.
>>
>>
>>On the contrary... I'm looking for justification of a search
>>for "Black male privilege" at the exclusion of a search for
>>"Black female privilege."
>
>
>I am not sure what you mean here. What do you mean by at the
>exclusion of a search for "Black female privilege"?


I already answered this question very thoroughly.


>Again, I think everyone has some privelges including black
>women.


Right, and I said I can at least appreciate that you're
taking that position, even though I find this hijacked
discourse rather senseless and even dangerous.



> You might say "well I'm not doing
>>that," but this is only being discussed because
>intersectional
>>theorists posit that ONLY Black women exist at an
>intersection
>>of gender and race... thereby ignoring the very real
>gendered
>>racism that Black men experience.
>
>
>Who says this though? Citations please. It all sounds like
>strawman.


Who says what? I'll be happy to answer as soon as
you answer my questions that you've twice ignored.
It's not strawman at all, and I've explained why...
very thoroughly at this point.
I got citations throughout the post and even more
if you wanna start treating this like a conversation
and stop talking past me... or you could just read
what I've already written.


>Yeah we know the origins of intersectionality discussions but
>the idea has caught fire because it gives a framework to
>discuss all sorts differences like rgw different privileges of
>black men versus white men versus black women, etc.


That's not true, and I can easily prove it,
but I'm not wasting my time with all the typing,
since you aren't reading it anyway... plus I've
already explained how it's not true.
But let's assume it is true. The problem is
that it doesn't assess how those identities
"mutually and synergistically shape, reinforce,
and constitute one another."